tv The Cycle MSNBC February 19, 2013 12:00pm-1:00pm PST
, or body, enlarged or painful breasts, problems breathing during sleep, and blood clots in the legs. tell your doctor about your medical conditions and medications, especially insulin, corticosteroids, or medicines to decrease blood clotting. so...what do men do when a number's too low? turn it up! [ male announcer ] in a clinical study, over 80% of treated men had their t levels restored to normal. talk to your doctor about all your symptoms. get the blood tests. change your number. turn it up. androgel 1.62%. hi victor! mom? i know you got to go in a minute but this is a real quick meal, that's perfect for two! campbell's chunky beef with country vegetables, poured over rice! [ male announcer ] campbell's chunky soup. it fills you up right. a talking car. but i'll tell you what impresses me. a talking train. this ge locomotive can tell you exactly where it is, what it's carrying, while using less fuel.
delivering whatever the world needs, when it needs it. ♪ after all, what's the point of talking if you don't have something important to say? ♪ i'm s.e. cupp. right now on "the cycle," we're spinning the wheel of miss fortune. today, it lands on sequester siesta. wake up. >> i'm toure, if it's tuesday, it's beat the press. the white house loves that game. and sneaking out to play a little golf with tiger woods. i'm kristal ball. had has gender equality hit a -- >> and i'm steve kornacki. put that in your pipe and smoke it.
>> oh, twitter pics of steve catching a quick siesta in the office before we air are always a hit. >> yeah. >> here's one from this morning. >> catching a few zs. >> this is a habit. >> is this is the pot segment -- >> yes, it is. >> this one happens to be my favorite. that was from a month or so ago when i caught him slumped down in his chair. you'll notice a couch right behind him. >> yeah, i'm raising six kids, right? >> that couch is really uncomfortable. i have tried it before. >> the chair's not comfortable either. >> steve, you're our inspiration for today's wheel of misfortune. we're going with sequester siesta. the cuts kick in a week from next friday. congress is in recess until monday. remember, the sequester started
as a white house proposal. and republicans voted for it. but now, both sides seem more focused on avoiding taking the rap for it than they are trying to stop it. president obama is back from his siesta and back in the bully pulpit. >> these cuts are not smart. they are not fair. they will hurt our economy. they will add hundreds of thousands to the employment rolls. this is not on abstraction. people will lose their jobs the american people have worked too long, too hard to see their elected officials cause another crisis. it seems like every three months around here there's some manufactured crisis. >> it sure does. we have a senate insider with us who knows all too well how the senate works or in most cases doesn't work. former senate leader tom daschle and also the author of "the u.s. senate."
welcome. >> thank you. >> on this sleepy siesta day, i want you to try to get obama's mind back on us. if you remember back in the presidential debates he sort of dropped a bomb when he said the sequester will not happen. a couple of his advisers went back and said, well, i think what he meant was, it should not happen. he also tried to shake off the proposal something that congress believed got four pinocchios. this came from the white house. and now according to politico, obama is not really reaching out to senate republicans to try and get anything done. my question to you is the sequester that obama actually wants because he thinks republicans will get the blames for the cuts? or this just a gamble that he didn't think was going to go all the way and as far as it has? >> well, i think the president has come to the conclusion that it's pretty hard to reach a deal right now. it appears that republican, both in the house and in the senate, are really determined to go through with the sequester. so he sees somewhat of a few
ti futility at this point. his only option is to go out in the country, talk about the implications and hope that the pressures that could come from the grassroots could change the kind of environment that he's facing in washington. >> right, senator, one of the reasons the white house likes the idea of sequester a year and a half ago, it was weighted towards defense cuts. there's a sacred cow that the republicans have. it involves the republicans. when you have john mccain out there and lindsey graham saying this is absolutely -- if it goes through, it's not universal embraced by republicans in washington. and like you say, to the point it looks like it's going to go forward with the sequester. i guess is this a two-part gain
by the republicans where they let the sequester go through. and three weeks later we have this continues resolution that comes up and maybe they see an opportunity there with the sequester. they can have their showdown with the president and then get rid of the cuts anyway? do you see a possibility of that? >> i think you're going to see some resolution of this after the cuts go into that for a couple days. the republicans have two schools of thoughts. one is deep concern that that has. part the majority of is reflected by the republicans what's the fuss. we're talking 5% here. everybody ought to be able to suck it up with a 5% cut, including with the defense department. i think he represents the majority thinking on the republican side right now. never mind that those 5% cuts in each of the departments are taken much more severely because you've got to focus on certain programs. that isn't 5% across the board on defense. it's 5% that could have a
profound effect. nonetheless, that's how they view it, minimal for what they think is the potential for more for cuts looking forward. >> senator, i want to hear your sort of strategic thinking how the president is going forward. he's been dealing with this obstructionist thinking. and now they've got them thinking let me defend the far right challenge. so need to be standing up to the president no matter what he proposes. so how do you advise the president to deal with this obstructionist congress in order to deal with the legislative terms second term? >> el were, i think every president has to come with a way that he or she feels most comfortable. i think for this president, he's got to find areas for which there is common ground. i think the best example is immigration. i don't think there's any doubt by the end of the year, we're going to have a deal on immigration. unfortunately, those issues are far and few between.
nonetheless, that's the first approach to find an other where they thinks republicans are invested. it's possible that we could see tax reform at some point. i think in addition to that, both sides have to continue to find ways to keep the lines of communication open. calling them down to the white house, actually maybe even come into the capitol building a couple of times. something unprecedented. nonetheless, would make the point that he wants to keep those communication options open to him. >> senator, it's not just a social thing of keeping the lines of communication open. but people are refusing to communicate with him no matter what. so it's a different strategy that he's got to approach, don't you think? >> no question. that presents a framework. but you still have to do what he has been doing. make your case with the state of the union. he did it it with the something that grainaugural. that's the only issue he's got. continue to frame the issue in a way that will deflect ultimately
on congress that his predecessors did. bill clinton did, harry truman did it, ronald reagan did it. >> senator, i'm glad to hear you that think an immigration deal will happen by the end of the year. an area where they have more trouble finding common ground. chuck hagel has faced a really ugly confirmation battle. republicans have used an unprecedented filibuster to at least slow down that confirmation. you said on filibusters that filibusters abused terribly today, especially on nominations. filibusters against nominees create a chilling effect that keeps top talent from even accepting nominations." is it time for a more comprehensive filibuster reform? >> unfortunately, i've come to that conclusion. the filibuster was used in the past but used very rarely. but it's now used as an everyday matter of course.
we had 130 some motions in congress. you can't run a country that way. you can't run a government. especially with regard to the white house when you have a limited amount of time for each of these members to serve in a cabinet or high-level positionfr a year or sometimes even two years is unacceptable. we're going to have to revisit the filibuster in nominations and hopefully they'll do it before this congress. >> i agree with you, the 60-vote senate, especially as it relates to executive branch nominations is really troubling. a long-term precedent there. but i wonder if there's a separate issue as it relates to cabinet nominees. you were up to hhs in 2009. you look at the questioning that chuck hagel has faced, specifically from ted cruz, in his confirmation for the defense secretary job.
re real scurrilous stuff here. are you worried beyond the filibuster about the treatment of nominees and the treatment of prospective nominees and how that might have a chilling effect in the future? >> no question. i've talked to many people who have contemplated offering themselves in faires capacities. and a lot of them ask the question, is it worth it? can i really survive this incredible mine field that one has to endure to get through the nominating process. it's becoming more and more crass, more confrontational. and let respectful. i don't think this is the message we want to send not only in this country, but around the world who use us many in respects as their model to make their own judgments about government. so it's not just the audience at home that we've got to be concerned about. it's worldwide. >> former senator tom daschle.
have a weekend with tiger woods. stop by hooters and have some wings. the other night, i came home an hour late and my wife as a little miffed. she said, it's not that you did it, it's that you didn't tell me. fair enough. the same dynamic, i think, is going on in washington on sunday. the president played golf with tiger woods. sending the white house press in rage. they weren't mad that the president was on the links with the greatest golfer of all times. they were mad they weren't told about it. they learned about it from a "golf digest" reporter. why didn't you just tell us. the transparency and accuracy that they thought they deserved is not being delivered. the president is happy at keeping them at arm's length. were it a facebook relationship, everyone would say it's complicated. by the way, like us on facebook. howard fineman. he's here to explain what's really going on. howard, this is part of a classic white house versus press corps battle, right?
>> first of all, i think the lead so far is that toure likes hooters. >> that's the main story there. >> that is the main story. >> anyway, two thumbs up. yeah, this is a -- this say typical washington battle where the most trivial thing generates the most discussion. while ignoring the more serious story behind and above it, that nobody bothers to look at which is not only whether the president is doing his job, but whether the press is doing its job. i just wrote a piece on the huffington post where the kicker of it was, let's make sure that the reporters, namely us, make sure we're worthy of the access we're not getting. and i don't think we are. >> interesting condemnation of the white house press corps, howard, i like it. >> i'm not limiting it to the white house. >> he's condemning us, too. >> yeah. >> us, too?
did we just get dissed and i didn't realize it? look, howard, i think part of the different dynamic here is we have this sort of pop culture president who is comfortable with and able to take his message to "the view," also to david letterman on and on and is able to use twitter in an interesting and innovative way. so he doesn't need to deal with the traditional hard news media in the way we've typically done? >> well, i don't buy that explanation partly because you used the word "also." it's not that he also has done google hangouts and reddit and "the view" and so forth. he's not doing "the new york times" or "the washington post" or the huffington post or anyone else. >> or "the cycle." >> or "the cycle." >> how dare he. >> he's using the available technology. and he's using the social media kill th skill that they began to develop
that his first campaign to essentially do a work-around of what's left of the washington press corps. it's true that the washington press corps, in general and the white house in particular don't have the clout that they used to have. the president isn't required to deal with them the way he used to be to get his message out to the country. through facebook, through twitter, through reddit, through the white house website, through youtube. they can get to the american people on their own. and this is the first administration to fully do that. and i don't think the press corps, what used to be called the national press corps, has figured out how to deal with it yet. >> i think that's the interesting point. the idea that the president wants favorable coverage and is going to exert his influence to try to get that and so to the safer outlets if he doesn't need to go through the white house press corps. to me, that's not news. robert carroll has an interesting antidote in his book
about lbj and power. he talks about lbj held up the merger of a newspaper in texas and forced them to -- he extracted a written pledge that they would not cover him unfavorably at all for the rest of his time in the white house. an actual written pledge. so it doesn't seem like the white house, this particular dynamic with the white house and the press is really new. >> no, it isn't. and i love it when you quote robert kayro. it makes us old guys feel good. and it's the masterpiece of press manipulation by lyndon johnson. so, no, it's not new. obama is using the latest technology. he can call him for the fact that the president does not like to go before the press in unstructured situation where is he might be asked uncomfortable questions. that's true. and we can blame him for it. and we can criticize him for it.
but i think at least the point i was trying make in huffington post. it's our obligation as reporters and news organizations not to whine about that but to dig, instead of whine. you know, ask the questions repeatedly, if they don't answer, highlight the fact they're not answering the questions. do the digging that makes for pointed questions that it's difficult to ignore. as opposed to merely wanting access so you can stand around and watch the president play golf. >> you know, howard, i've got to give john cook credit for this. the story society that sparked the whole conversation was in politico. politico talking about how obama is trying to avoid tough situations. and john cook pointed out that politico did actually get a one-on-one interview with george w. bush in 2008. among the tough questions that were asked, all right, mr. president, who does the better impression, will ferrell
of you ordain that kavi of your father? mr. president, i know ugoing to hate this, but i'm hoping that we may twist your arm and talk about baseball. and mr. president, you and the first lady appeared in an "american idol" charity show. "idol" gives back. who is going to win? there were more serious questions mixed in there. i covered congress for a little while. and my experience was the worst place to cover congress and know what's going on was at official press conference or hanging around in an official event or one one-on-one interviews with congressional leaders because they're going to give you the spin that they thought about. there's a lot of reporting to be done without the access that this politico piece is demanding. >> right. but i would also say, i've watched over the years, as succeeding administrations take more and more territory.
and more and more sort of power for themselves, to determine the rules and the rights of the conversation. even reporters asking simple questions, simple direct factual questions of low-ranking administration officials, have a hard time getting answers. i know this in the huffington post. we have a big bureau now. we have a lot of reporters throughout digging all the time. it's hard to get answers to simple questions because this white house does try to control the flow of information. but what that means you have to do, you're not going to get it out of the administration for the most part. you got to go to the hill to get it there. you got go to kay street to get it there. you got to go to court records to get it there. you got to get it there first and then confront them with it to get any information out of it. that's sort of the way it's always worked. it's harder now -- it's harder now that any white house feels rightly that it can pretty much communicate at will directly with the american people, without having to go through
either the television networks. or cable networks. the major newspapers and major websites. news websites. they don't do it. and it's going to be very rare that they will in the future. and i guarantee you that whatever the next administration is like, it's going to be even more down this road than the obama administration already is. >> well, and, howard, yeah, i just want to bring it back to transparency a little bit. i don't care about the golf game at all. i think that's much ado about nothing and kind of a distraction. but the transparency issue is sort of amplified because it was such a huge part of his 2008 campaign promise. that this was going to be a of course transparent administration, as opposed to sort of the last one. and just last thursday, president obama, in a g-chat setting said that this is the most transparent administration in history. and i don't know if they think that's because going on twitter
somehow counts on transparency, it doesn't. when you look back over the first term and when you look at how this administration has invoked the espionage program and the drone program. the lack of access to the president. do you really think he can make a fair case that this has been the most transparent administration in history? >> well, on one level probably, yes. they've showed us a lot what they want to show us. so it's transparent in the sense by sheer volume, there's a lot of information out there. >> you mean in terms of leaks and that sort of thing? >> no, not in terms of leaks. they do put stuff out on the internet. they put a lot of information out there. they complain with some justification that a lot of the national press corps doesn't pay attention to that stuff out there. that's true. but most of it is not where the news is. the news is in the things that they don't put out there for the most part. and on that, they really do
feel, this goes back to the campaign, having seen it at the beginning. they wanted to control their own narrative. they did it better than george bush did it before him. or bill clinton, god knows, had done it before that. they won without, for the most part, having to reveal what they didn't want to reveal. or tell stories they didn't want to tell. don't forget, this say president who basically wrote his own campaign biography, years before he ever ran for office. >> yes, he did. >> he's used to controlling the narrative. and that is the mantra of this white house. and they have done it better in a more focused fashion than any administration i've ever seen. and at this point, i've seen a lot of them. >> someone who is quite good at the twitter. howard fineman, thank you for stopping by. >> thank you toure. up next, is china coming for us, and are they just one click away? mine was earned in djibouti, africa, 2004.
the battle of bataan, 1942. [ all ] fort benning, georgia, in 1999. [ male announcer ] usaa auto insurance is often handed down from generation to generation because it offers a superior level of protection and because usaa's commitment to serve the military, veterans, and their families is without equal. begin your legacy. get an auto-insurance quote. usaa. we know what it means to serve. the end. lovely read susan. but isn't it time to turn the page on your cup of joe? gevalia, or a cup of johan, is like losing yourself in a great book. may i read something? yes, please. of course. a rich, never bitter taste cup after cup. net weight 340 grams. [ sighs ] [ chuckles ] [ announcer ] always rich, never bitter. gevalia.
[ announcer ] always rich, never bitter. the people of bp made a commitment to the gulf., and every day since, we've worked hard to keep it. today, the beaches and gulf are open for everyone to enjoy. we've shared what we've learned, so we can all produce energy more safely. bp's also committed to america. we support nearly two-hundred-fifty thousand jobs and invest more here than anywhere else. we're working to fuel america for generations to come. our commitment has never been stronger.
the collective result of these kinds of attacks could be a cyber-pearl harbor. >> we cannot look back years from now and wonder why we did nothing if the face of real threats to our security and our economy. >> today, u.s. security firm report is putting a face on the growing cybersecurity threat. the chinese military. according tie report since 2006, hackers tied to the military and based on this office building in shanghai have stolen information from 450 companies. 115 of them in the united states. including contracts and major businesses. today, china fired back at the foreign ministry, dismissing the claims as groundless and pointing out they've been cyberattacked too. this afternoon spokesman jay carney said the white house has
repeatedly discussed cyberhackings with chinese officials. the white house keeps urging congress to pass legislation to protect us, but how do you fight a nameless, faceless enemy in a cubicle world away? let's spin. i think the message i take out of this, guys, is that technology is moving so fast. it's really hard to keep up with it. in terms of foreign policy and national security. whether it's cyberthreats or drones. when you have these kind of covert attacks, i think it's even more important to increase accountability measures and get some legislation codified. look, stutsman is a perfect example. i love the fact that we may or may not have, but probably did, crash iran's nuclear program computer. i like that. i like drone technology, for the most part, for going after
terrorist threats in al qaeda. but it's really hard when other people get the same kind of technology that we have. it's really hard for us to wag a finger and say, can't do something like that. when we're kind of doing a lot of the same things without much accountability. >> well, i'm not sure it's sort of like writing down our program is going to change what other people use their sort of cybertechnology. and there's a lot of countries, russia, singapore, north korea, using the same cyber. >> exactly. >> china engages in massive amounts of cyber espionage. we know in that the way is government is structured, the national government is controlling that there. there's no way of this happening without it coming from the chinese government. this company, mandiant, that released this report, they generally pointed to china for every problem they've come
across. i'm urging a tiny bit of caution, china has become this boogieman saying they did something wrong, be it the company, be it it cyber warfare, and everybody is going for it. part of the problem for the anti-china xenophobia, needs china to be prosperous for them to be prosperous, right? in foreign affairs even after china's prosperity will remain independent on the rivals, including the united states. china will not get ahead if its rivals do not also prosper. >> i don't know about the xenophobes. i think that's a little unfair. >> i think they're a principal offender, though, and they are a particular threat that we should absolutely be concerned about. but, you know, the question is, why hasn't action been taken on this already. congress has been working on
this for over three years to come up with some sort of legislation to combat cyberattacks. unfortunately, it actually ends up coming down to pro-government, anti-government no regulation argument. businesses are pushing against what would be government regulations. things like telling them if they have been hacked. having specific layers of security to protect their customers and their systems. and there's also questions about whether customers should be, for example, able to skew businesses if their data is compromised and the business has been negligent. also, it's familiar to anybody falling to domestic policy in united states. >> i'm not waiting for congress. i'm buying gold. i'm getting rid of the phone. >> yeah. >> i'm getting rid of the computer. cash is going into shoe boxes. tomorrow, i will not be on the show, but i'll be sending in my comments via carrier pigeon. >> you have any eyebolt
companies you'd like to suggest to the viewers? >> there are certain guests. i'm going to sleep on a piefl gold and when the marauders come, i'm going to fight them off. >> now, we know where your gold is going to be. under your bed. >> we've reached the end. that's what i got from this segment. we've reached the bed. >> debbie downer. i have an exciting announcement to share with you guys in the "the cycle" at home. you know i get the sweetest tweets sent to me because my political views make me by far the darling of the network. i've been working on the best of the best tweets i get or the worst of the worst. we're calling it s.e.'s tweet bag. that's right. the first episode features bravo's andy cohen. we had a ton of fun when i
crashed his "watch what happens" set. and the links on the facebook page, so you have no excuses. while you're there, let me know what you think about it. >> and like us. up next, 50 years ago today, "the feminine mystique" hit bookshelves and rocketed women out of that. how far have we come from "mad men." >> why is it every time a man takes you out for lunch around here, you're the dessert. >> that's terrible. >> it's constant for every corner. [ male announcer ] pearls. hairbands.
and now hot pink toes. seems tough for a tough dog like duke. but when it has anything to do with gwen, he's putty in her hands. for a love this strong, duke's family only feeds him iams. compared to other leading brands, it has 50% more animal protein... ...to help keep his body as strong as a love that can endure anything... even every fashion trend. iams. keep love strong. prego?! but i've been buying ragu for years. [ thinking ] i wonder what other questionable choices i've made? [ club scene music ] [ sigh of relief ] [ male announcer ] choose taste. choose prego.
chances are, you're not made of money, so don't overpay for motorcycle insurance. geico, see how much you could save. here's my question, who are the ladies? >> we're the ladies. >> i'm not the ladies. >> yeah. you're the ladies. >> i am not the ladies. >> yes, you are, you're the ladies. >> you're being unfair. you can't force me to be a lady.
>> i'm not forcing you to be a lady. okay. i'm a lady. she's a lady. you're a lady. we're the ladies. >> i'm confused. am i the ladies, too? >> yep. yep. >> good, glad we got that settled. before hbo's "girls" began giving uninsight into the young mind, the feminine mystique" by unveiling the unhappiness of housewives, causing them to live away from the kitchen. and now nearly 200 years, new myths do threaten not only women their their entire families. with us professor stephanie koontz, he's the author of "a strange stirring." stephanie, thank you for being
with us. >> my pleasure. back to last summer, ann marie slaughter published this article in the atlanta take title "why women still can't have it all." basically parked this debate. pointing out that women have to be super human to balance the job, and the family life. i think we're trying to sort that out. you also point out in recent years, married women in particular have actually been leaving the labor force. so what are some of the barriers throughout that still exist for us? >> well, we've come such a tremendously long way. back in 1963, if you wanted a job, you had to go to the help wanted female section of the want ads. if you got a job as a college educated woman you'd earn less than the high school grodropout
male. it was never the thought that women could have it all. that was a madison avenue mystique. but the fact that we now have a world where 70% of american kids grow up in households where at looeft where every member, every adult in the household is at work. and our policymakers and business leaders still assume we're back in the era of "mad men" where there's a woman at home to take care of the rest of life. that's a problem for women but also for men who also want to be at home. >> i read your "the new york times" piece on this. i want to read back the last thing you say which is "we must stop seeing work/family policy as a women's issue and start seeing it as a human rights issue that affects parent, children, partners, singles and elders. feminists should certainly support this campaign, but they don't need to own it." i found that fascinating. if i were giving advice to the
republican party and conservatives. it strikes me this might be a good entry point for conservatives to address this kind of policy without making it a pro-feminist argument. but a pro-family argument. >> that's right. everybody should get in on this. not only people with children. need for the work/family flexibility. but there's more people taking care of aging parents these days than of preschool children. even if you're single, you have family responsibilities. so it is a human rights issue for individuals that need to do this. it is for our competitiveness as a society because we're excluding people by forces them to choose between work and family. and of course for those who need care, both elders and children. >> stephanie "the feminine mystique" seemed to change the world. we didn't realize the world that used to exist before it in a lot of ways. can you talk about how and why that book changed america? >> well, there were a lot of
things that were already going on that were drawing women into the workforce. but what you had was this extraordinary set of myths that betty made up a word for. she called it the feminine mystique. that women were so totally different than men that you couldn't treat them as people. that all women, the normal woman renounced as one psychiatrist put it, all aspirations outside the home. not out of coercion like in the bad days. but because all would come from watching the achievements of her husband. but so feminine mystique, women who actually believed this found themselves unhappy, discontented because they were human beings, something more in their lives. first, they turned it inward saying what's wrong with me? they started taking tranquilizers. they thought they were crazy. literally, women i interviewed, i thought i was crazy.
and she came along, no, you're not created. society is crazy for not wanting the same aspirations that men have. and one woman told me after the book she flushed her tranquilizers in the toilet. >> that is amazing. stephanie, thank you for being with us. thank you. and straight ahead, a trip to weed country. >> no thank you. >> a vietnam vet that escape ptsd with weed and the cop out to catch them all. but, dad, you've got... [ voice of dennis ] allstate. with accident forgiveness, they guarantee your rates won't go up just because of an accident. smart kid. [ voice of dennis ] indeed. are you in good hands? has oats that can help lower cholesterol? and it tastes good? sure does!
this is what it's like... paying full price for a hotel room. and this is what it's like getting a high-end hotel room for 45% off published prices... ... with travelocity's top secret hotels. ooo, tingly. from capital one... boris earns unlimited rewards for his small business. can i get the smith contract, please? thank you. that's three new paper shredders. [ boris ] put 'em on my spark card. [ garth ] boris' small business earns 2% cash back on every purchase every day. great businesses deserve unlimited rewards. read back the chicken's testimony, please. "buk, buk, bukka!" [ male announcer ] get the spark business card
from capital one and earn unlimited rewards. choose 2% cash back or double miles on every purchase every day. told you i'd get half. what's in your wallet? there's nothing more american than a man taking it and producing a product that people want. >> this is the emerald. >> that looks like a barn -- >> they stand to make millions. >> it's just a business that can't fail. >> or be locked up for years. >> uh-oh. >> it's a decades' old battle between cops, dealers and growers. using 21st century science to make the most powerful weed on earth. >> every time one of those plants fall, that's money that we don't get. >> it is a problem, of ep demid
proportio proportions. >> yeah, i'm breaking the law on tv. so what? this is weed country, we will never stop this, ever. >> oh, well. a new discovery channel series is shining a u.v. light on the billion-dollar pot industry from organic granola or organized drug cartels. depending on how who you talk to you'll hear recreation use or no use at all. it's creeping into your lives from ballot boxes to backyards. "weed country" brings us the stories behind the product. nathaniel morris is one of them. he's a grower, using 21st century to raise the most potent stuff on the planet. nate is one of the stars of "weed country" which premieres this thursday at 10:00 p.m. on the discovery channel. nate, i guess for one of your
sort of, for lack of a better term, claims to fame, there's a story where a woman who's 3-year-old child had been dealing with horrible treatment-resistant epilepsy, was having seizures all the time. sort in desperation, she turned to you to see if there was anything you could cook up for her for her son. we have a clip from. we'll play it and ask you about that. >> there were days when he had ten seizures in one day. and we down stop them. >> ben's pediatrician advised several treatments invieweding invasive surgeries, countless pills and huge doses of steroids. when they didn't work, the doctor wanted ben's mom to try another round. >> for one of those rounds i had to sign a paper that said you realize your child up to date on that, what you actually ended up doing for this boy. did it have any benefit medically and i know obviously that this put you into some
legal jeopardy. can you tell us about what your current status is legally? >> absolutely. unfortunately, i can't dive into too much detail about what actually happens on the show. people are going to have to tune in for that but i can tell you that i have been actively engaged in research and development of high cbd medical cannabis. cbd is a compound within the plant that doesn't get you high but does alleviate seizures. i am proud to report that we have had quite a bit of success with that. >> nate, we just showed a chart of the states that allow medical marijuana, a few other states are experimenting with full decriminalization altogether. i would like to hear you make the case for legalization. >> absolutely. i think that the evidence is really ruling in that the medical properties of the plant alone should justify full legalization. i think separate from the medical properties, there's the basic -- you know, the potential
tax revenue and just the failure that trying to stop people from consuming cannabis, it doesn't make sense to continue it anyways. but on a broader level, i think that prohibition in general doesn't work. and it's my hope that the realization that cannabis prohibition has failed sparks a broader realization that the entire war on drugs needs to come to an end. >> i was just going to say, give us some insight into how you became a grower yourself. what's your background and are you sort of typical of the growers you see in humboldt county? >> i'm not sure i'm exactly typical. i started growing at a young age. i have always been kind of a science geek, and so, yeah, i started when i was 14, but i didn't really get focused on it until my mid-20s. i have a lot of interest in it. you know, i'm interested in
botany and the general science of propagating plants, not just marijuana, but all kinds of plants has always been a fascination of mine. i also have epilepsy, so there's a natural interest in a plant that has the potential to prevent seizures. since then i have done more research and come across more and more studies that show just an enormous number of illnesses that medical cannabis is capable of treating and that's really pushed me along this path and motivated me to keep going. does that answer your question? >> yes, it does. >> all right, nate morris. thanks for that. up next, the war against the poor and the general according to s.e. is the president. , and to s.e. is the president. , accog to s.e., is the president.
i've always kept my eye on her... but with so much health care noise, i didn't always watch out for myself. with unitedhealthcare, i get personalized information and rewards for addressing my health risks. but she's still going to give me a heart attack. that's health in numbers. unitedhealthcare. today is gonna be an important day for us. you ready? we wanna be our brother's keeper. what's number two we wanna do? bring it up to 90 decatherms. how bout ya, joe? let's go ahead and bring it online. attention on site, attention on site. now starting unit nine. some of the world's cleanest gas turbines are now powering some of america's biggest cities. siemens. answers.
as republicans plot a new way forward that acknowledges changing demographics and a messaging problem when it comes to women and minorities, it's clear they're optimistically hoping earnest efforts towards immigration reform will help some of their problems. the white house's backup plan was leaked by someone over the weekend and if one wanted to read into the strategy, it's plausible that the obama administration saw a little too much progress coming out of the bipartisan senate gang of eight and they're worried that republicans like marco rubio might walk away with a little too much credit if meaningful immigration policy is actually passed. as laudable as republican efforts have been to walk a delicate pathway to immigration
reform fraught with political dangers on every side, they might want to accept now they will never truly enjoy the fruits of their labor. democrats will make sure they get to bask in all the kudos and republicans are made to look like the begrudging reluctant me toers who merely went along to save face. the real area where republicans could make up some ground is on poverty. for all the attention president obama has given the middle class, his administration hasn't been able to make any inroads in lowering poverty and for all the efforts to malign the evil 1%-ers income equality has only widened under obama. we have the largest number of people counted as poor in the 53 years that poverty has been measured. those tragic numbers come into even starker focus for blacks, hispanics, and women. although blacks represent 13.1% of the general population, they accounted for 27.6%f